The exchanges below follow those that took place in an earlier posting titled "Are Christians Sinners?": http://livelearnloveleavealegacy.blogspot.com/2009/11/are-christians-sinners-discussion.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Thank you, Lip Kee. You summed it up very well. The emphasis on the all-sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness, his saving work for us and the assurance of our salvation is indeed commendable. Like wise, I agree that we should address and describe believers in more affirming, encouraging and assuring ways.
However, it seems that those who advocate this approach has the tendency to ignore Christian discipleship which is a legitimate aspect of holiness. I may be wrong, but they hardly mention if ever, sanctification, obedience, feeling remorse for one’s sins, the pursuit of righteousness, training in righteousness, holiness, good works, the mortification of sin, endurance and sufferings.
Instead there is ambiguous language in terms like sonship, resting in faith, you're as righteous as Christ is, the good news about Jesus Christ (making the gospel synonymous with the whole counsel of God) and so on. They teach that God is no longer angry with believers when they sin and fails to distinguish between juridical and filial displeasure. They allude that if a believer is concerned about sin, obedience, or ongoing repentance, or good works, then he has not fully grasp the all sufficiency of God’s grace.
“Yet what we SUFFER NOW is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later. For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. And we believers also GROAN, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from SIN and SUFFERING. We, too, WAIT with EAGER HOPE for the day when God will give us our FULL RIGHTS as his adopted children including the new bodies he has promised us.” (Romans 8:15-23)
Lip Kee replied:
Hi C,
Having read your latest comment, I felt it would be appropriate for me to provide some response.
I believe I understand where you are coming from when you wrote: "it seems that those who advocate this approach (of emphasising on the all-sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness, his saving work for us and the assurance of our salvation) has the tendency to ignore Christian discipleship which is a legitimate aspect of holiness."... Read more
First of all, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Christian discipleship is a legitimate aspect of our walk of faith.
I acknowledge that there are some among us who may be less mature in the faith, and whose understanding of Biblical truths may be somewhat superficial, and as a result, we may appear to be ignorant or even dismissive of certain so-called "traditions" and "traditional ideas". Nonethelss, I believe most of us agree that discipleship and discipline are necessary and important.
I believe a Christian who ignores discipleship is neglecting his spiritual health and impeding his personal growth. A church deficient in the aspect of discipleship must be, in my opinion, a church that is (or will be) unstable and unsustainable.
As to how Christian discipleship is taught or inculcated, I believe each church has its own unique approach. For instance, in the Presbyterian church I grew up in, "discipleship" and "discipline" were words I frequently read and heard in the church, and the related conepts of which I was systematically taught in the Sunday schools, Bible study classes and training seminars I attended; whereas in my current church (which I've been a member of for the past seven years), I have been subject to what I felt were relevant and impactful teachings on discipleship and discipline, even though the words "discipleship" and "discipline" are not as frequently and explicitly read and heard.
It is not for me to say which is the better approach. Suffice to say, I have learned much from both and am thankful.
C, you wrote: "they hardly mention if ever, sanctification, obedience, feeling remorse for one’s sins, the pursuit of righteousness, training in righteousness, holiness, good works, the mortification of sin, endurance and sufferings...They allude that if a believer is concerned about sin, obedience, or ongoing repentance, or good works, then he has not fully grasp the all sufficiency of God’s grace..."
Similar to my comment on "Christian discipleship" above, I believe even though we may differ in the way and the frequency we use those exact words, most, if not all of us are agreed that sanctification, obedience, the pursuit of righteousness, training in righteousness, endurance, ongoing repentance, and good works etc. are all important aspects of our Christian life, our faith walk.
We are not negligent in reminding and encouraging one another: to set ourselves apart in Christ and be blameless before men in the world (sanctification); to constantly renew our mind with the Word of God and live a Spirit-led life (obedience); to fix our eyes on our Lord Jesus Christ and be transformed into His image (the pursuit of righteousness); to understand our utter deprivation and helplessness without Him and our total dependence on Him for the ability and willingness to live right (training in righteousness); to perservere and not give up hoping because of His faithfulness (endurance); to continually turn our mind away from the world and its sins to the Lord and His saving grace (ongoing repentance); to respond to God's love and gifts by loving and giving to others (good works).
I observe the leaders and friends whom I worship together, serve, pray and fellowship with in church, I see how they live their lives (both inside and outside of the church). They endeavor their best to walk out lives that are Christ-centered, church-edifying and God-glorying.
Like I said before, there are (and there will probably always be) some among us who are somewhat superficial and not so mature. But I pray and trust that we will grow up and grow well.
As for "sin" and "suffering", my view is that these themes are being covered regularly, extensively and repeatedly in the church, when we receive in-depth teachings on:
- our Saviour (who saves us from sin); and
- the Cross (on which our Lord endured sufferings unimaginable, and by which we have hope to endure through and triumph over our own sufferings).
I hope this helps to address some of your concerns. Shalom. :-)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Are Christians sinners? - a discussion
The exchanges below follow those that took place in an earlier posting titled "Should Christians follow Paul's example and call ourselves sinners?": http://livelearnloveleavealegacy.blogspot.com/2009/11/should-christians-follow-pauls-example.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Yes, Stanley. Christ has paid the penalty for ALL our sins. Yes, even when we sin, we are still righteous in God's eyes. But where did you get the idea that He no longer see us as sinners? Why all these warnings in the bible? For example,
"We must ALL stand before Christ to be JUDGE. We will each receive whatever we deserve for good or evil we have DONE in this earthly body." ( 2 Cor. 5:10)
"It is God's will that you should be sanctified..The Lord will PUNISH men for all such sins as we already told you and warned you. For God did NOT call us to be IMPURE, but to live a holy life." (1 Thess 4:3-7).
What is wrong for God to see us as righteous because of Christ's act and to see us as sinners for what we really are?
Why cant we call a believer who sins a sinner (James 5:8) ? What is wrong to admit that although one is righteous in the eyes of God, one is also a sinner if one commits a sin?
In the biography or autobiography of great saints, they say towards the end of their lives, they are still sinners. The reason is that as they get closer to God, they become more aware of their sins.
Most unbelievers live in darkness and because their conscience is dead, they are not aware of their sins. As we grow closer to the Light, it will reveal our more of our hidden sins, motives and agendas. We shall out of remorse and Godly sorrow that leads us to repentance.
The more we know we are sinners, the more closer we will draw near to God. It sounds like a paradox, and like most great christian truths, they are paradoxical.
Stanley wrote:
"What is wrong for God to see us as righteous because of Christ's act and to see us as sinners for what we really are.?"
Well, C, I guess you belong to Blaise Pascal's "the righteous, who believe themselves sinners". As for me (and I think Lip Kee as well), I belong to "the righteous, who believe themselves righteous" BUT no worries, you and I will still meet in heaven, just that our journey there will be entirely different experiences ;-)
Lip Kee wrote:
To find common grounds on which to facilitate our communication and enhance mutual understanding among us, I read through all the comments again, and my comments are as follows:
1. For Stanley, the term "Christian" and "sinner" are used to define the spiritual IDENTITY of a person.
A "Christian" is someone who believes in and accepts the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, saved from the prison called "sin", and born again as a child of the most high God. The IDENTITY of a believer, a saved person, a Christian, is that of "the righteousness of God in Christ" (Rom 5:21), even if he were to fail and fall, and commit sinful acts.... Read more.
Does a Christian still have the flesh in him? Does sin in the flesh have an influence over the believer? Is it possible for a child of God to still commit sins? Yes, yes, and yes. But he remains forever a born again child of God. He cannot "un-born" himself from God's family.
In contrast, a "sinner" is an unbelieving, Christ-less, unsaved person who belongs to the tribe of the first Adam and has yet to be reborn into God's family. The IDENTITY of an unsaved person remains that of a "sinner", regardless of how saintly he behaves, and how many good works he has done.
Stanley believes that the real IDENTITY of a Christian is found in the last Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, and not in the first Adam. As born-again children of God, our true IDENTITY is found in the Spirit (the supernatural), not in the flesh (the natural).
Since we are taught in the Bible to walk NOT by sight (i.e. to perceive and live naturally, to look to ourselves and depend on our self-efforts) but by faith (i.e. to perceive and live super-naturally, to look to Jesus and depend on His grace), we are to see our IDENTITY in Christ, in the Spirit, and not in our humanity, in the natural.
I believe it is in the above sense that Stanley asserts that a Christian (a child of God) can never become a sinner (a non child of God) and should therefore not be addressed as such.
2. For C, the term "sinner" simply describes a person based on his actions and deeds. The term "sinner" does not so much define the identity of a person as it DESCRIBES THE DEEDS performed by him.
Therefore, when a person, regardless of whether he is a believer or an unbeliever, commits a sinful deed, he is described as a sinner.
Here, we are NOT talking about the person's identiy. His identity as a beloved child of God remains intact - he is still fully forgiven, still completely accepted, still perfectly righteous IN CHRIST.
Nevertheless, when seen and described in his humanity, in the natural state (in contrast to the spiritual state which is IN CHRIST), this person is indeed someone who has done wrong and fallen short - a doer of sin, a sinner.
In the sense above, I would agree with C that it is not inappropriate to use the term "sinner" to describe a born again believer.
3. Personally, I think it all boils down to the context in which and the meaning to which we attribute the word "sinner" when we use it. I believe when the context of the usage and our intended meaning are made clear, we will find it easier to appreciate each other, and not disagree with each other so much. :-)
As I've stated in point 2 above, I don't object to the use of the word "sinner" to describe born-again believers. Nevertheless, my personal conviction and strong preference is to use words such as "beloved", "accepted", "Royal Priesthood", "the righteousness of God" etc. to address my fellow siblings in Christ and myself.
I find it can be quite confusing to call a believer the righteousness of God in one breath, and then in the next breath, call him a sinner.
But there is a way out. To avoid any confusion and misunderstanding, we can say, "IN and of ourselves, we are but filthy and sorry sinners, but thanks be to God, IN CHRIST our lovely Savior, we are the precious children of our Abba, fully forgiven and greatly loved by Him. We are the righteousnes of God! :-)
Shalom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Yes, Stanley. Christ has paid the penalty for ALL our sins. Yes, even when we sin, we are still righteous in God's eyes. But where did you get the idea that He no longer see us as sinners? Why all these warnings in the bible? For example,
"We must ALL stand before Christ to be JUDGE. We will each receive whatever we deserve for good or evil we have DONE in this earthly body." ( 2 Cor. 5:10)
"It is God's will that you should be sanctified..The Lord will PUNISH men for all such sins as we already told you and warned you. For God did NOT call us to be IMPURE, but to live a holy life." (1 Thess 4:3-7).
What is wrong for God to see us as righteous because of Christ's act and to see us as sinners for what we really are?
Why cant we call a believer who sins a sinner (James 5:8) ? What is wrong to admit that although one is righteous in the eyes of God, one is also a sinner if one commits a sin?
In the biography or autobiography of great saints, they say towards the end of their lives, they are still sinners. The reason is that as they get closer to God, they become more aware of their sins.
Most unbelievers live in darkness and because their conscience is dead, they are not aware of their sins. As we grow closer to the Light, it will reveal our more of our hidden sins, motives and agendas. We shall out of remorse and Godly sorrow that leads us to repentance.
The more we know we are sinners, the more closer we will draw near to God. It sounds like a paradox, and like most great christian truths, they are paradoxical.
Stanley wrote:
"What is wrong for God to see us as righteous because of Christ's act and to see us as sinners for what we really are.?"
Well, C, I guess you belong to Blaise Pascal's "the righteous, who believe themselves sinners". As for me (and I think Lip Kee as well), I belong to "the righteous, who believe themselves righteous" BUT no worries, you and I will still meet in heaven, just that our journey there will be entirely different experiences ;-)
Lip Kee wrote:
To find common grounds on which to facilitate our communication and enhance mutual understanding among us, I read through all the comments again, and my comments are as follows:
1. For Stanley, the term "Christian" and "sinner" are used to define the spiritual IDENTITY of a person.
A "Christian" is someone who believes in and accepts the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, saved from the prison called "sin", and born again as a child of the most high God. The IDENTITY of a believer, a saved person, a Christian, is that of "the righteousness of God in Christ" (Rom 5:21), even if he were to fail and fall, and commit sinful acts.... Read more.
Does a Christian still have the flesh in him? Does sin in the flesh have an influence over the believer? Is it possible for a child of God to still commit sins? Yes, yes, and yes. But he remains forever a born again child of God. He cannot "un-born" himself from God's family.
In contrast, a "sinner" is an unbelieving, Christ-less, unsaved person who belongs to the tribe of the first Adam and has yet to be reborn into God's family. The IDENTITY of an unsaved person remains that of a "sinner", regardless of how saintly he behaves, and how many good works he has done.
Stanley believes that the real IDENTITY of a Christian is found in the last Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, and not in the first Adam. As born-again children of God, our true IDENTITY is found in the Spirit (the supernatural), not in the flesh (the natural).
Since we are taught in the Bible to walk NOT by sight (i.e. to perceive and live naturally, to look to ourselves and depend on our self-efforts) but by faith (i.e. to perceive and live super-naturally, to look to Jesus and depend on His grace), we are to see our IDENTITY in Christ, in the Spirit, and not in our humanity, in the natural.
I believe it is in the above sense that Stanley asserts that a Christian (a child of God) can never become a sinner (a non child of God) and should therefore not be addressed as such.
2. For C, the term "sinner" simply describes a person based on his actions and deeds. The term "sinner" does not so much define the identity of a person as it DESCRIBES THE DEEDS performed by him.
Therefore, when a person, regardless of whether he is a believer or an unbeliever, commits a sinful deed, he is described as a sinner.
Here, we are NOT talking about the person's identiy. His identity as a beloved child of God remains intact - he is still fully forgiven, still completely accepted, still perfectly righteous IN CHRIST.
Nevertheless, when seen and described in his humanity, in the natural state (in contrast to the spiritual state which is IN CHRIST), this person is indeed someone who has done wrong and fallen short - a doer of sin, a sinner.
In the sense above, I would agree with C that it is not inappropriate to use the term "sinner" to describe a born again believer.
3. Personally, I think it all boils down to the context in which and the meaning to which we attribute the word "sinner" when we use it. I believe when the context of the usage and our intended meaning are made clear, we will find it easier to appreciate each other, and not disagree with each other so much. :-)
As I've stated in point 2 above, I don't object to the use of the word "sinner" to describe born-again believers. Nevertheless, my personal conviction and strong preference is to use words such as "beloved", "accepted", "Royal Priesthood", "the righteousness of God" etc. to address my fellow siblings in Christ and myself.
I find it can be quite confusing to call a believer the righteousness of God in one breath, and then in the next breath, call him a sinner.
But there is a way out. To avoid any confusion and misunderstanding, we can say, "IN and of ourselves, we are but filthy and sorry sinners, but thanks be to God, IN CHRIST our lovely Savior, we are the precious children of our Abba, fully forgiven and greatly loved by Him. We are the righteousnes of God! :-)
Shalom
Should Christians follow Paul's example and call ourselves sinners? - a discussion
The exchanges below follow those that took place in an earlier posting titlted "Teaching personal responsibility in church": http://livelearnloveleavealegacy.blogspot.com/2009/11/teaching-personal-responsibility-in.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Hi Lip Kee, your interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:15 is that Paul was speaking of himself in the natural, in the flesh, NOT of himself in Christ, in the Spirit.
So it seems that there are two forms of speaking for believers, one in the flesh, the other in the Spirit. A kind of dualism bordering on split personality when one can speak in the flesh at ... Read moreone moment, and at another moment, speak in the Spirit.
Why cant we just accept PLAINLY what the text says, " Here is a TRUSTWORTHY saying that deserves ACCEPTANCE : Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I AM the WORST? Why force an unnatural meaning into the text?
Lip Kee replied:
Hi C, I believe it was Paul himself who spoke about the "dualism" or "split personality" in Romans 7. In particular verses 17 to 20, where he wrote, "But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find...Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me."
Seems to me Paul was having a serious case of "split personality", don't you think so?
Paul went on and exclaimed, "O wretched man that I am!", but praise God he did not stop there. To the question, "Who will deliver me from this body of death?", Paul's answer was, "I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom 7:24-25).... Read more
In Rom 7, Paul was talking about himself in the natural, in the flesh. Then from Rom 8 onwards, Paul wrote about the life in the Spirit, in Christ: a wonderful life that begins with "no condemnation" (Rom 8:1), ends with "no seperation from the love of God" (Rom 8:38-39), and in between, the receiving the Spirit of Sonship by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father" (Rom 8:15); the assurance that "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom 8:31); the promise of "how shall God not with Jesus also freely give us all things" (Rom 8:32); and the proclaimation that "in all these things, we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37). What a gloriously victorious life in the Spirit, and what a stark contrast to defeated and helpless life in the fresh.
It seems to me the apostle Paul was the one who legitimise the "dualism" or "split personality" of a Christian's life. That being the case, I don't think my interpretation of 1 Tim 1:15 is "forced".
I hope I am making sense to you. Shalom. :-)
C wrote:
Hi Lip Kee, what you said make sense. However, in the context of Romans 7:14-25, Paul makes it CLEAR that he is STRUGGLING WITH SIN.
He elaborates in Galatians 5: 16-18, "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in CONFLICT with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law."
Having said that, that does not meant that Paul is speaking in the natural (flesh) in Romans 7 and speaking in the Spirit in Romans 8.
If we take your approach of reading the Bible, we will always have to guess whether Paul is speaking in the flesh or speaking in the Spirit in all the things he wrote. Thus, if a particular verse does not fit in to our theology, we can easily dismiss it or say that Paul is speaking in the flesh.
This is what you did as you interpret Paul as speaking in the flesh in 1 Tim 1:15 when the plain reading of the verse says that Paul says " I AM chief of the Sinners." He did not say or even infer that he is speaking in the natural ( flesh).
Lip Kee replied:
Based on my little knowledge and limited wisdom, I am convinced that in Rom 7 Paul is talking about life in the flesh, and in Rom 8 he is talking about life in the Spirit. I also feel comfortable with my interpretation that Paul is talking about himself in the flesh in 1 Tim 1:15.
I don't insist that others should accept my views on those passages of Scripture. If anyone were to find my sharing helpful, take it and use it to the praise of God. If not, just throw it away or ignore it. Afterall, I am no Bible scholar or theologian. :-)... Read more
Now, regarding the verse in James 4:7-8: "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded."
I read through the entire book of James a couple of times and in different versions this morning. I realised that the letter is meant to address a range of issues involving several different groups of people within "twelve tribes scattered among the nations". A portion of the letter was directed at the persecuted who were undergoing trials; a portion to those who apparently had anger management issues and were undisciplined in the way they spoke with one another; another portion to those who practiced favoritism in church; another portion to people who did not walk the talk and were lacking in good works; another portion to those who presumed to be teachers but were unwise in their speech and stirred up controversies; another portin to those who indulged in their pleasures; another to brothers who slandered one another; another those who boost in their future plans for profit; another to the rich oppressors, another to a group of apparently poor and long-suffering people; and another to those who were in trouble and sick.
In James 4:8, when James used the word "sinners", it is possible that he was addressing a certain group or a few groups of believers in the churches. At the same time, it is also not unthinkable that James might be addressing the unbelievers among the group(s) of people.
Even if we were to assume that there were no non-Christians/unbelievers among the churches in "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations", and that James used the term "sinners" to address the believers, I believe he meant it in the way of "you who committed sinful acts" (in reference to their deeds) rather than "you who are unforgiven and unrighteous" (in reference to their IDENTITY, their relationships with the Lord).
In any case, my personal view is that the two verses in 1 Tim 1:15 and James 4:8 do not firmly or in any way establish a case/ an example for us to follow in terms of how we should identify, address or describe ourselves and our fellow believers.
I find the ways the writers of the New Testament identify, address and describe believers are mostly (if not always) affirming, encouraging and assuring, and I intend to follow that pattern.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Hi Lip Kee, your interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:15 is that Paul was speaking of himself in the natural, in the flesh, NOT of himself in Christ, in the Spirit.
So it seems that there are two forms of speaking for believers, one in the flesh, the other in the Spirit. A kind of dualism bordering on split personality when one can speak in the flesh at ... Read moreone moment, and at another moment, speak in the Spirit.
Why cant we just accept PLAINLY what the text says, " Here is a TRUSTWORTHY saying that deserves ACCEPTANCE : Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I AM the WORST? Why force an unnatural meaning into the text?
Lip Kee replied:
Hi C, I believe it was Paul himself who spoke about the "dualism" or "split personality" in Romans 7. In particular verses 17 to 20, where he wrote, "But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find...Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me."
Seems to me Paul was having a serious case of "split personality", don't you think so?
Paul went on and exclaimed, "O wretched man that I am!", but praise God he did not stop there. To the question, "Who will deliver me from this body of death?", Paul's answer was, "I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom 7:24-25).... Read more
In Rom 7, Paul was talking about himself in the natural, in the flesh. Then from Rom 8 onwards, Paul wrote about the life in the Spirit, in Christ: a wonderful life that begins with "no condemnation" (Rom 8:1), ends with "no seperation from the love of God" (Rom 8:38-39), and in between, the receiving the Spirit of Sonship by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father" (Rom 8:15); the assurance that "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom 8:31); the promise of "how shall God not with Jesus also freely give us all things" (Rom 8:32); and the proclaimation that "in all these things, we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37). What a gloriously victorious life in the Spirit, and what a stark contrast to defeated and helpless life in the fresh.
It seems to me the apostle Paul was the one who legitimise the "dualism" or "split personality" of a Christian's life. That being the case, I don't think my interpretation of 1 Tim 1:15 is "forced".
I hope I am making sense to you. Shalom. :-)
C wrote:
Hi Lip Kee, what you said make sense. However, in the context of Romans 7:14-25, Paul makes it CLEAR that he is STRUGGLING WITH SIN.
He elaborates in Galatians 5: 16-18, "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in CONFLICT with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law."
Having said that, that does not meant that Paul is speaking in the natural (flesh) in Romans 7 and speaking in the Spirit in Romans 8.
If we take your approach of reading the Bible, we will always have to guess whether Paul is speaking in the flesh or speaking in the Spirit in all the things he wrote. Thus, if a particular verse does not fit in to our theology, we can easily dismiss it or say that Paul is speaking in the flesh.
This is what you did as you interpret Paul as speaking in the flesh in 1 Tim 1:15 when the plain reading of the verse says that Paul says " I AM chief of the Sinners." He did not say or even infer that he is speaking in the natural ( flesh).
Lip Kee replied:
Based on my little knowledge and limited wisdom, I am convinced that in Rom 7 Paul is talking about life in the flesh, and in Rom 8 he is talking about life in the Spirit. I also feel comfortable with my interpretation that Paul is talking about himself in the flesh in 1 Tim 1:15.
I don't insist that others should accept my views on those passages of Scripture. If anyone were to find my sharing helpful, take it and use it to the praise of God. If not, just throw it away or ignore it. Afterall, I am no Bible scholar or theologian. :-)... Read more
Now, regarding the verse in James 4:7-8: "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded."
I read through the entire book of James a couple of times and in different versions this morning. I realised that the letter is meant to address a range of issues involving several different groups of people within "twelve tribes scattered among the nations". A portion of the letter was directed at the persecuted who were undergoing trials; a portion to those who apparently had anger management issues and were undisciplined in the way they spoke with one another; another portion to those who practiced favoritism in church; another portion to people who did not walk the talk and were lacking in good works; another portion to those who presumed to be teachers but were unwise in their speech and stirred up controversies; another portin to those who indulged in their pleasures; another to brothers who slandered one another; another those who boost in their future plans for profit; another to the rich oppressors, another to a group of apparently poor and long-suffering people; and another to those who were in trouble and sick.
In James 4:8, when James used the word "sinners", it is possible that he was addressing a certain group or a few groups of believers in the churches. At the same time, it is also not unthinkable that James might be addressing the unbelievers among the group(s) of people.
Even if we were to assume that there were no non-Christians/unbelievers among the churches in "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations", and that James used the term "sinners" to address the believers, I believe he meant it in the way of "you who committed sinful acts" (in reference to their deeds) rather than "you who are unforgiven and unrighteous" (in reference to their IDENTITY, their relationships with the Lord).
In any case, my personal view is that the two verses in 1 Tim 1:15 and James 4:8 do not firmly or in any way establish a case/ an example for us to follow in terms of how we should identify, address or describe ourselves and our fellow believers.
I find the ways the writers of the New Testament identify, address and describe believers are mostly (if not always) affirming, encouraging and assuring, and I intend to follow that pattern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
